Redbird, quoting Miche: The real point of my post is not to assume that someone is "broken" just because they behave in ways you don't like or don't understand.
Assuming someone is broken because you're angry or confused is different from having solid evidence that the person is broken. That's a really important distinction.
miwasatoshi: I guess the point I'm trying to make is that we HAVE to judge who we associate with by how they behave; there will always be interpersonal conflict. But there are differences (race, creed, sexual orientation, relationship orientation, etc) that really shouldn't matter, not nearly as much as basic values and philosophies.
This looks like you're talking about a different kind of distinction than Miche. Judging whether someone is broken is based on what the person says and does, not on skin color or gender. ("Creed" is a different sort of thing, because if a person said, "Someone would have to be really crazy to believe in that fanatic cult," that might be a sensible judgement, if they were talking about Heaven's Gate. Making the same statement about Southern Baptists might be just prejudice.) Some people are crazy, and some people are dangerous, and some people I should try to avoid for my own peace of mind. Those are three different groups. There's some overlap, but they are three different groups.
For instance, someone in my extended family believes the most important thing any intelligent person can do is to marry another smart person and have babies. It troubles her that I'm not even trying to have children. I don't think she's broken, though I have some difficulties dealing with her. I don't like her premises or her conclusions; I have some problems with some of her values and priorities. I don't think it would help anything to take my fundamental disagreement with her, and use that as an excuse to pretend she was broken or insane, or to accuse her of having something essentially wrong with her.
miwasatoshi continued: (Because let's face it: it's not like I'm ever going to be able to get along with a person who shoots birds for the hell of it, for example.)
I think it's important to recognize that people can not get along, even when neither of them are broken.
Is your example of shooting birds something you disapprove of because you think it shows cruelty to animals and thus an evil nature? Cruelty to animals is certainly evidence of being broken (it can be fairly solid evidence. I think it goes well beyond behaving in "ways you don't like.") Sometimes a person can be cruel at a distance without really understanding the consequences of his or her actions, and that seems more like a lack of enlightenment than really being broken...that's easier to fix, in my experience.
no subject
The real point of my post is not to assume that someone is "broken" just because they behave in ways you don't like or don't understand.
Assuming someone is broken because you're angry or confused is different from having solid evidence that the person is broken. That's a really important distinction.
miwasatoshi:
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that we HAVE to judge who we associate with by how they behave; there will always be interpersonal conflict. But there are differences (race, creed, sexual orientation, relationship orientation, etc) that really shouldn't matter, not nearly as much as basic values and philosophies.
This looks like you're talking about a different kind of distinction than Miche. Judging whether someone is broken is based on what the person says and does, not on skin color or gender. ("Creed" is a different sort of thing, because if a person said, "Someone would have to be really crazy to believe in that fanatic cult," that might be a sensible judgement, if they were talking about Heaven's Gate. Making the same statement about Southern Baptists might be just prejudice.) Some people are crazy, and some people are dangerous, and some people I should try to avoid for my own peace of mind. Those are three different groups. There's some overlap, but they are three different groups.
For instance, someone in my extended family believes the most important thing any intelligent person can do is to marry another smart person and have babies. It troubles her that I'm not even trying to have children. I don't think she's broken, though I have some difficulties dealing with her. I don't like her premises or her conclusions; I have some problems with some of her values and priorities. I don't think it would help anything to take my fundamental disagreement with her, and use that as an excuse to pretend she was broken or insane, or to accuse her of having something essentially wrong with her.
miwasatoshi continued:
(Because let's face it: it's not like I'm ever going to be able to get along with a person who shoots birds for the hell of it, for example.)
I think it's important to recognize that people can not get along, even when neither of them are broken.
Is your example of shooting birds something you disapprove of because you think it shows cruelty to animals and thus an evil nature? Cruelty to animals is certainly evidence of being broken (it can be fairly solid evidence. I think it goes well beyond behaving in "ways you don't like.") Sometimes a person can be cruel at a distance without really understanding the consequences of his or her actions, and that seems more like a lack of enlightenment than really being broken...that's easier to fix, in my experience.